Griffin gives a clear and detailed explanation of how the destruction of WTC7 is such a problem for the official 9/11 narrative. He points out that, despite such evidence as Swiss cheese steel, melted molybdenum and witness testimonies, general awareness of the WTC7 elephant in the room is still remarkably low.

"Building what?" was the response from Judge Edward Lehner, to the question "Why did WTC7 come down?", posed by NYC CAN lawyer Dennis McMahon, in September 2009.

Griffin points out that a Zogby poll in 2006 found that 43% of the American people were unaware of WTC7's destruction. Even Dutch demolitions expert Danny Jowenko had no idea.

State Crimes Against Democracy, or SCADs, were identified in the February 2010 issue of American Behavioral Scientist, a leading social science journal. SCADS are "concerted actions . . . by government insiders intended to manipulate democratic processes and undermine popular sovereignty.” Having the “potential to subvert political institutions and entire governments . . . [SCADs] are high crimes that attack democracy itself.”

The journal cited 9/11 as its primary example of a SCAD.

Comment from John Bursill: "Many have concluded that the collapse of WTC 7 is the Achilles' heel of the official account of the 9/11 Attacks. Griffin's proposal is just one of many asking for a focus on 7, so there is much support already for this concept and doing it approaching the tenth anniversary seems a very good idea indeed!"

Comment from Frank Legge: "This is a remarkable paper by DRG. It draws together all the evidence that the public has been had and that the event is a SCAD. I like the way he winds up Shyam Sunder with his own words. I suspect that the SCAD concept will become well known in due course and prove very useful."

I have made an A5 booklet of this article. It's a PDF file which will print out onto A4. Handy for handing out, tabletop displays and mailing. There are 36 pages, so you'll need 9 sheets of A4.

“All truths are easy to understand once they are discovered;
the point is to discover them”
Galileo Galilei(1564 – 1642)
Veterans Today

Nobody in his right mind, nobody with the least critical thinking could possibly buy into the 9/11 official story of the reason why the world trade center towers collapsed – at free fall speed- like a house of cards into their basements in just few seconds- WTC building 7 collapsed in exactly 6.5 seconds. Something only very precise demolition can accomplish, something which takes days if not weeks to prepare.

Whoever planned the 9/11 operation and whoever managed to fool the masses of terrorized people and tricked them into believing that al Qa`ida and its members of Afghanistan cave dwellers pulled this thing off did not consider that scientists and trained specialists would be the ones to finally expose the conspiracy and unravel 9/11 mystery.

In a previous post by the title “Danish scientist breaks the 9/11 culture of silence” We explained why professor Neil Harrits– a Danish professor of chemistry- believed the two airplanes- impacts did not cause the towers to collapse. And according to a newly published scientific article, researchers found Nano-Thermite explosive in the rubble of WTC collapsed buildings that couldn’t have come from the planes. They believe large amounts of explosives were placed in the buildings in advance.

Niels Harrit and eight other researchers conclude in this article that it was Nano-Thermite that caused these buildings to collapse.

Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth

Richard Gage, AIA, Founder of Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth (AE911Truth) with former Senator Gravel, held a press conference Presenting Findings on September 9, 2010 at National Press Club, Washington, D.C.

They presented the group’s findings and called for a new investigation into the destruction of the 3 World Trade Center skyscrapers on 9/11.

Their findings are based on the following scientific observations and Hard Evidence of Explosive Demolition of the WTC towers.

As seen in this revealing photo, the Twin Towers’ destruction exhibited all of the characteristics of destruction by explosives:

And exhibited none of the characteristics of destruction by fire, i.e.

1. Slow onset with large visible deformations
2. Asymmetrical collapse which follows the path of least resistance (laws of conservation of momentum would cause a falling, intact, from the point of plane impact, to the side most damaged by the fires)
3. Evidence of fire temperatures capable of softening steel
4. High-rise buildings with much larger, hotter, and longer lasting fires have never “collapsed”

WTC Building #7, a 47-story high-rise not hit by an airplane, exhibited all the characteristics of classic controlled demolition with explosives:

1. Rapid onset of “collapse”

2. Sounds of explosions at ground floor – a second before the building’s destruction

I believe it's never a good idea to indulge in name calling. Evidence and logic are what we should be using rather than personal attacks. When we campaign for people to change their minds (open their eyes to the truth) on 9/11 we should welcome that rather than calling them slithy lizards or somesuch. We demean ourselves every time we indulge in name calling. Use of insults hands a victory to our opponents by making us look childish and trivial.

Who is this alleged slithy lizard anyway - neither the engineer nor the bereaved father in this interview surely? I suppose it must be Fox News.

Who is this alleged slithy lizard anyway - neither the engineer nor the bereaved father in this interview surely? I suppose it must be Fox News.

Geraldo is the snake. He has spent nine years calling 9/11 truthers nutcases and using his position as a national tv personality to help in the cover-up. Calling him a snake is a lot less than what he and his kind deserve. He is trying to jump the sinking ship the devious poltroon.

There's a lot of talk about how this is some kind of psyop. The idea being that faux news would never give this air time unless there was some kind of agenda behind it.

But, with the BuildingWhat? advert doing the rounds in the US at the moment, if they didn't give it air time people would obviously ask why and it would give credence to the fact that wtc7 is largely ignored.

If they give it airtme then it diffuses the issue.

I have to say that Rivera's personal "change of heart" does raise an eyebrow. And we must remember that faux news released the "Awlaki at the Pentagon" story just a short while before the Printer Cartridge Bomb fiasco. Which was largely pinned on Awlaki himself.

He has NOT seen the light. He always knew the truth. He is a rat leaving the sinking ship and trying to save his own skin before the inevitable retribution begins. He is guilty of treason and should not be allowed to escape the consequences of his years of anti 9/11 truth propaganda. He and his kind deserve the same fate as Lord Haw Haw.

You may be right in your assessment of him. Not having the power of mind reading, I am unable to judge.

But there are masses of journalists who are essentially manipulated by their bosses. They have sold out. This one may well now have been forced by his bosses to air a small piece of the truth. But there is nothing to be gained by personal insults. Our case rests on evidence, not personal attacks.

Calls for revenge will not cause journalists to change their minds. It will merely confirm their prejudices that we who lambaste them are so deeply cynical that we are not worth taking seriously.

We beat the donkey with a stick when he doesn't do what we want and when he does we beat him again in punishment for the previous times when he didn't. We offer no carrots to anyone. There are far more important things we should do to advance the growth of consciousness of the truth than to berate those who reluctantly reveal it.

If the revolution is headed by folk like us, the new regime will be unforgiving, tyrannical and oppressive.

"Getting the basta*ds" smacks of a desire for revenge. But revenge is a very hollow kind of victory. You may want to enjoy someone you hate being hanged or imprisoned but it will bring no long-term satisfaction. Revenge gives birth to counter-revenge and that in turn to counter-counter-revenge until an eye for an eye makes us all blind.

There's a lot of talk about how this is some kind of psyop. The idea being that faux news would never give this air time unless there was some kind of agenda behind it.

But, with the BuildingWhat? advert doing the rounds in the US at the moment, if they didn't give it air time people would obviously ask why and it would give credence to the fact that wtc7 is largely ignored.

If they give it airtme then it diffuses the issue.

I have to say that Rivera's personal "change of heart" does raise an eyebrow. And we must remember that faux news released the "Awlaki at the Pentagon" story just a short while before the Printer Cartridge Bomb fiasco. Which was largely pinned on Awlaki himself.

Very odd uturns from Faux News it has to be said.

Will be interesting to see their next move.

I think that's quite a shrewd analysis of what may be going on, Godsave.
It's the New York activists and their supporters who have now set the agenda and Fox News are merely doing a damage limitation exercise. It's great news.

Rivera is just a yesman doing his master's bidding. If he wasn't there they would employ someone else to be their ventriloquist's dummy.

I think the best form of revenge is a change of government and a new financial (or resource based) system without the control by the banksters.

Much as I support a change of global governance and a new system based on equitable sharing of the world's resources without the bankers, David, I wouldn't really call that "revenge".

It would be rather a channelling of the negative emotions we feel about this corrupt world into building a positive new world order based on sharing, justice, co-operation, peace, effective international law, learning, knowledge and a revival of positive ethical principles which are common to all cultures.

Xmasdale - get the basta*ds means getting the basta*ds into the dock, into an international warcrimes tribunal and weeding out and exposing these black-ops Fascist elements that have been entrenched for a long time.

This week, Geraldo Rivera was foiled in his attempt to “contain” the 9/11 movement, something exploding around the world. A Herald Sun poll in Australia the week before, 10,000 respondents, showed 78% support for 9/11 being an “inside job.” A reasonable estimate for Americans is likely to approach the same figure.

Fox News now “owns” 9/11 as much as they own Glen Beck. First, Judge Napolitano “outed” the phony investigation now Geraldo Rivera has taken a strong stand on the (www.buildingwhat.org) Building 7 demolition issue. If you put both shows together, they lead to the most frightening coverup in modern history and a clear evidentiary trail, one Fox News has exposed. Why, then, is the door opened and then closed again? Why are we “dancing around” as though 9/11 were a joke? When we talk Building 7 and explosions, the specific issue that Geraldo Rivera and Fox News are now ready to accept as “very possible,” we are talking murder.

When the relatives of the dead from Building 7 are seen on the television commercial, they are telling us, as was done on Geraldo, that their family members died in explosions that were purposefully set. As there is more than “probable” cause that the explosions that killed so many were purposeful and extremely criminal, real terrorism, real murder and we can easily find who is responsible, why are we “dancing around?”

When Rivera accuses demonstrators of being “nut jobs” two years ago, he is showing his own ignorance. He believes, as he is saying now, that since qualified engineers are now doubting the official explanation, anyone demonstrating “now” is not a “nut job” at all. What the ignorant narcissist fool Rivera is missing, of course, is that when the demonstrators he attack were out there, two years ago, engineers and architects had long ago come forward, not two years ago, not five years ago. To Rivera, there is no reality, there is no truth, until “he” learns of it. Where in hell do we find people like this.

I keep seeing him unearthing the secret “Al Capone” bunker in Chicago. This is the same Geraldo Rivera.

AMBUSH ATTEMPT BY RIVERA

Rivera tried, during the show, to “sucker” the parent of a Building 7 murder victim into a 2 minute discussion of 9/11 as an “inside job” knowing quite well he would be able to get a quick attack in. Rivera was outwitted as the video shows, cut off at the legs. Why would Rivera do this?

When we say “inside job,” we mean the US government but also we mean Israel. It was an Israeli team that was arrested filming 9/11, openly admitting they knew in advance. Israel also admitted they knew about the 1982 Beirut bombing that killed 224 Marines. With “dual citizens” involved in planning the “war on terror,” surrounding and advising Bush and Cheney every step of the way, it is impossible to say “inside job” without saying “Israel did it” as we hear from Dr. Alan Sabrosky and journalist Alan Hart.

It was easy to see where Rivera was heading, you could hear the hate in his voice when he played the clip from two years ago. Rivera owes them an apology but failed to see the irony of his own confusion. Of course, Rivera could have an agenda.

WHY BUILDING 7?

Mr. Rivera leaves more than a few things out of his story. The Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth, the group he is now behind, don’t just say Building 7 was a “mystery,” they say all three buildings were engineering impossibilities, even or perhaps “especially” those hit by planes. The buildings were constructed to withstand, with no structural damage whatsoever, hits by larger planes than these. When we say “no structural damage” we aren’t talking about them falling down.

Similarly, the Pentagon attack is, is possible, even more obvious than Building 7. The reason building 7 is chosen is because there is enough hard evidence already to make arrests, enough evidence for criminal convictions for premeditated murder. The case for Building 7 is there and those who could be arrested would shock the world. This is why every move for any inquiry is crushed. It would bring the world to a stop, for a brief second at least.

It would also leave the world better, safer and cleaner. Nobody at Fox News wants that.

BRITAIN ‘COMING APART’ TOO, 7/7 COVERUP NOT HOLDING WATER

On July 7, 2005, bombs went off all over London. An exhaustive Wikipedia article, carefully orchestrating the “spin,” blaming the bombings on Osama bin Laden, now known to have been dead for 4 years at the time, is an interesting read. However, the families of those who died have been screaming “false flag” all along. The timing, when Tony Blair was facing an election and a no-confidence vote on Iraq, was curious. Some aspects of the bombing, in particular, the one bus which seemed purposefully rerouted, have millions of Britons up in arms.

Were there not “theories” that contradict the cursory and seemingly “planned in advance” investigation, the violent reactions by the government to requests for a new investigation have, in themselves, brought many to questioning the official story. As with 9/11, it isn’t that Geraldo Rivera is reassessing his opinions, it is that he is doing it nearly a decade later, after having every bit of evidence, he is now claiming he has just learned about what was at his disposal for years and years. Rivera, heaven forbid, is a journalist, and has personally heard the engineering doubts about 9/11 dozens of times for many years.

Is Rivera more an actor? Rodeo clown?

FOX IS NOT NEWS, FOX IS ISRAEL AND RIVERA IS AN ISRAELI

Covering up 9/11 is key to Israel’s foreign policy. If they are blamed, America will turn on them as journalist Franklin Lamb warned this week. Rivera, an Israeli citizen, has reason to have an agenda especially since he works for Fox News, owned by Rupert Murdoch, another Israeli citizen. Rivera? Murdoch?

Simply put, if 9/11 was an inside job, Israel was there every step of the way and so was Fox News. Now they are trying to “spin” the story, control it, make murder a joke.

Murder is not a joke. Building 7 was demolished with explosives placed there long before 9/11. Rivera admits as much. Watch the video.

This is premeditated murder. Last time we checked, this was a crime in New York City.

There's a lot of talk about how this is some kind of psyop. The idea being that faux news would never give this air time unless there was some kind of agenda behind it.

Like rather a lot in this world ... Fox news is not all bad - in2001 they were the only network in the world to reveal the crucial AMDOCS scandal which exposed Comverse Technologies and Verint Systems as an Israeli Mafia intelligence front.

A full and proper enquiry into 9/11 with the perpetrators being identified and punished. Then those who, like Chomsky, knowingly helped to delay or prevent such an outcome, being revealed for the traitors they are and also being held to account. The idea that Chomsky deserves any grace is ridiculous. He has abandoned his position because he knows the game is up and hopes to avoid retribution. No other reason. Nothing has changed apart from a mass awakening and he knows it.

Xmasdale - get the basta*ds means getting the basta*ds into the dock, into an international warcrimes tribunal and weeding out and exposing these black-ops Fascist elements that have been entrenched for a long time.

It also means life without parole for the lot of 'em.

Nothing more, nothing less.

"When will we ever learn"?

Learn what, oh wise one?

I would certainly like to see those who are accused of the 9/11 massacre and cover up facing charges, but a fair trial should take precedence over jumping to conclusions about who is guilty of exactly what. I would principally like to see the ringleaders in the dock and I'm not too bothered about the pawns such as Rivera.

I very much doubt that Rivera or Chomsky had anything to do with the planning and execution of the 9/11 attacks.

The experience of the Watergate scandal showed us that it is possible to nail the b****** if certain middle ranking people are offered immunity from prosecution provided they give in court verifiable evidence about the ringleaders. Of course it's regrettable that those guys (the bishops, knights and rooks) get off, but if it leads to conviction of the kings and queens, I believe it is worthwhile.

I doubt Rivera is anything more than a pawn. I don't understand why Chomsky has been so blind about it until now but I don't see him as a major player behind the plot.

I'm opposed to the whole principle of deciding who is guilty and who innocent prior to any kind of trial. Trial by media is unacceptable. It's a poor principle to punish those who belatedly support you, because by so doing you let it be known that anyone who jumps ship towards you will be punished. That discourages people from jumping ship.

But now, and this is too much, another left-wing gatekeeper has turned. George Galloway interviewed Ian Henshall of Reinvestigte 9/11 on his Talksport radio show last Friday night. At the end of the interview Galloway said he did believe there should be a new inquiry into 9/11.

To me that sounds like the cue for Wakeymedia and Item 8 to call him names like "snake" and "traitor" for not having supported our cause for the last ten years. You guys had better think up some really filthy insults to welcome him to the 9/11 truth cause, otherwise people might get the impression that the 9/11 truth movement seeks to recruit supporters.

Joined: 26 Jan 2007Posts: 173Location: liverpool; the city that speaks out, always, scouseland, in the island formerly known as the UK

Posted: Sun Nov 21, 2010 10:28 pm Post subject:

xmasdale wrote:

But now, and this is too much, another left-wing gatekeeper has turned. George Galloway interviewed Ian Henshall of Reinvestigte 9/11 on his Talksport radio show last Friday night. At the end of the interview Galloway said he did believe there should be a new inquiry into 9/11.

To me that sounds like the cue for Wakeymedia and Item 8 to call him names like "snake" and "traitor" for not having supported our cause for the last ten years. You guys had better think up some really filthy insults to welcome him to the 9/11 truth cause, otherwise people might get the impression that the 9/11 truth movement seeks to recruit supporters.

this just came through on google groups.

Quote:

George Galloway in Montreal on November 17, 2010 stated bluntly, in
answer to a question posed by Michael Pengue of Montreal 911 Truth, that
conspiracy theories concerning 911 are madness, insane.

To me that sounds like the cue for Wakeymedia and Item 8 to call him names like "snake" and "traitor" for not having supported our cause for the last ten years.

I don't need a cue to call filth names. They are not, and will never be, "supporters" of 9/11 truth or any other truth. Any people with a high public profile who have spent almost a decade obstructing the 9/11 truth movement are not converts. They are habitual self-serving liars who see that they might get their comeuppance if they don't change sides. Disgusting snakes and traitors. Just what do you think has occurred to give Galloway his sudden flash of light?

On March 6, 1975, the Zapruder film finally made its American TV premiere on Geraldo Rivera's talk show Good Night America. A month earlier, the film had first been shown on TV in Australia. In April, wishing to avoid the appearance of "suppression," Time Inc. returned the film and all commercial rights to Abraham Zapruder's heirs for one dollar. Since 1978, the original has been kept in "courtesy storage" under conservation-conditions at the National Archives.

I don't need a cue to call filth names. They are not, and will never be, "supporters" of 9/11 truth or any other truth. Any people with a high public profile who have spent almost a decade obstructing the 9/11 truth movement are not converts. They are habitual self-serving liars who see that they might get their comeuppance if they don't change sides. Disgusting snakes and traitors. Just what do you think has occurred to give Galloway his sudden flash of light?

I don't think Galloway has had a sudden flash of light. I don't think he's someone we should trust. I am in correspondence with both Michael Pengue and Jaques Marcille.

I'm sorry that more people didn't hear the Talksport broadcast, but I only heard about it at the last moment.

My point is not that George Galloway has become a 9/11 truth campaigner but that he is now on record as saying he would welcome a new inquiry. He also said to Ian "but you haven't convinced me" though it was not clear what Ian had not convinced him of: presumably that 9/11 was an inside job.

It is perfectly possible for someone who believes the US government has not lied about 9/11 to welcome an independent inquiry, because they see that as a way of proving they are right.

Perhaps that is GG's position, it is still not clear, but other Canadian activists I am in contact with say they will question him further on his tour of Canada.

He was extremely rude and dismissve of Michael Pengue, but posters on this forum are not exactly being polite. Rudeness begets rudeness. Antagonism begets antagonism and violence begets violence. To my mind these are principles it is well to remember when campaigning.

But Michael Pengue did not ask him whether he would support a new inquiry but why he wouldn't equate Al Qaeda as a front for Western security agencies such as Mossad, CIA etc. Once you have got to the stage of realising there are strong links between Al Qaeda and the security agencies you are into deep politics. If GG had publicly endorsed such a connection he would have upset large numbers of his own supporters. As a typical politician he is not going to take that risk. I regard him as a slippery character, not someone we should look to for support or leadership.

However, his acceptance of the need for an inquiry, along with Chomsky's latest pronouncement on Press TV, are straws in the wind which may be indicators that the tide is beginning to turn.

My main point is that if we are rude to anyone who has hitherto been totally opposed to us as soon as they show signs of moving in our direction, all you do is discourage others from moving towards our position. That is just simple psychology.

There was a time when I and many others who are now deeply convinced 9/11 was an inside job did not think it was. Would there be any advantage in your berating us for not being supportive of the 9/11 truth movement during that period?

Unfortunately, the only explanation for Galloway's behaviour over the last years is that he is NOT AN HONEST MAN.

I, like many others, have tried to address 9/11 issues with him face to face. He will not engage with the information. He changes the subject, blusters and walks away. He basically does not WANT to know.

No one, superficially, has more good reason than George to recognise that 9/11 was a'inside job' for which Muslims were framed.

However, he is not prepared to use his position to bring the facts into the public domain and undermine the establishment 'Al Qaeda' 'War on Terror' bollox.

It is pretty clear, in my opinion, that he was heavily spoken to by our friends and protectors in MI5 and told that he would be allowed to carry on his 'good work' for the Palestinians provided he did not challenge the government 'War on Terror' meme.

I can see no other reasonable, nor even possible, explanation.

After all....

.......the man is anything but a fool!

Perhaps Robin Cook's sudden demise after stating in public that, "There is no such organisation as Al Qaeda and everybody in the intelligence services knows it".....played a part in the formation of Galloway's current traitorous public persona._________________--
http://kevboyle.blogspot.com/

A long time before Galloway will ever admit he did. The point is I NEVER objected to anyone questioning the official version nor did I denigrate those who were 9/11 Truthers. Because I had a mind open to other views I was able to reach the view that 9/11 was not as we are being told by officialdom. Galloway is not a stupid man and has doubtless ALWAYS known that the official version is junk. So what is he up to?? He is a fraud. Is he, with others like Chomsky, about to use his fame to pin the crime on Iran? Or anyone else the hidden powers want demonized?

You cannot post new topics in this forumYou cannot reply to topics in this forumYou cannot edit your posts in this forumYou cannot delete your posts in this forumYou cannot vote in polls in this forumYou cannot attach files in this forumYou can download files in this forum